I have a theory that’s probably wrong. It’s built on anecdotal hyperbole, e.g. I met this one guy one time, and he better than making theories than anyone.

Anyway…

–

ADD is created by liberal / new-age child rearing. It comes from allowing children, during a critical formation period, to do whatever they want, and, similarly, to stop doing anything they don’t want.

That’s the whole theory. I’m just adding more stuff now to make it seem like more than two sentences.

What this does is permanently burn into the child a lack of patience–a lack of the ability to do things he doesn’t like.

Look at Bay Area Asian families¹. I am astounded by the number of Asian families (the “be a doctor or don’t talk to me” kind) who go out in public and have like three kids sitting quietly…reading a book.

One can say it’s genetics I suppose. But I can punch them in the face, which would make them less likely to say that. Science is hard work some times.

But seriously. Forcing kids to do intense, difficult things they don’t want to do–like reading and staying quiet–as part of child-rearing just might be the preventative cure for ADD.

I’m wrong already; you’re just here to show me why. ::

Notes

¹ Anecdotal much?
² I wrote this entire post in the voice of Scott Adams.
³ The post image is a plus sign, because that’s how you add.

New Years resolutions are supposedly for people who plan on making changes in their lives. But they really aren’t. They’re actually for people who only talk about making changes and never do. People who actually make changes, like losing 20 lbs., or getting back into a favorite hobby, just wake up one day and decide to do it. And then they do.

People with the actual self-discipline to plan and implement change in their lives don’t wait for arbitrary time markers to do so. Those that do are pretenders, and that’s why the vast majority of New Year resolutions are never pursued for more than a month or so.

Quite simply, if a person had the fortitude to go further than a few weeks into a resolution, he would have already implemented the desired change. But he doesn’t. So he won’t. ::

I have a friend who’s brought the topic of sexism to the discussion table a number of times, and it’s been on my mind as a result. I believe I have a concise way of explaining the cause of our existing sexism problems:

Up until around 50 years ago–i.e. for the last tens of thousands of years–women have been considered “things”, and men have been considered “those who get things”.

The fact that this ancient reality has not been eradicated in the eye-blink of the social equality movement should fail to surprise anyone.

Much of the feminist thinking on the topic favors the the moralistic fallacy–the belief that if something is right (equal rights for women) then it should be found in the real world. Reality is far more cynical than that.

Slavery is natural. Racism is natural. And so is sexism. We are primates pretending not to be, and every step on the ascent up Mt. Moral will be taxed by the gravity of our animal selves. The fact that these things are natural doesn’t mean we stop working against them, but it does mean we can stop looking for less obvious reasons for their existence. Alas, no additional actors are required ¹.

So I join you in opposing sexism wherever it emerges, but not in assuming it’s some recently contrived tool devised by evil men. We are still the animals we used to be, and unnecessary mystery greets us whenever we forget this. ::

Notes

¹ Occam’s razor.

So I got to see Sam Harris speak last night in Berkeley. It was stellar. A few things stood out:

1. Adam from Mythbusters was there. I spotted him first standing in the line and walked up to him. I said, “So, you either look like the guy I’m thinking of or you are that guy. Which is it?” He says, “I’m him.” I say, “Great (shaking his hand), I enjoy your work.” He was totally cool. It was strange to hear him laugh (which is familiar from the show) to Sam Harris’s jokes. At one point Sam Harris said on the topic of science not being in the values business, “It’s a myth.” All the cool people looked at Adam, and he smiled.

2. I actually didn’t have a ticket to the talk, and when I arrived after driving from SF I was greeted with a “Sold Out” sign. Major downer. So I was standing in the “hope” line when I hear someone say that a guy over yonder has extra tickets. I teleport to his location and he says, “Oh, yeah, I have a ticket I’m giving away.” I figure he means I have to dance or do a backflip or something, and he simply hands it to me. So, at that point I wasn’t even in the “will call” line, I was then in the “I got a ticket, foo” line. Choice.

3. The talk was sufficiently fresh–even for those who were familiar with the work. I took a few notes on his argument path since I intend to be familiar with common counters (such as the ones I received in a recent Facebook mini-debate).

4. Somehow the idea of Adam Savage and Sam Harris in the same room together was really cool–especially when that room was a giant Church–when the topic was how bad religion is at discovering and fostering morality.

So, here are the primary points (a mix of my summaries and his actual arguments/phrasing):

• The primary Knight’s move goes like so:

  • Morality is related to well-being of conscious creatures
  • Well-being is tied to the state of the universe
  • It is science that can offer the most regarding the state of the universe

• We have beliefs about facts and we have beliefs about values. Both relate to the natural world. Under FMRI, the brain handles both equally.

• An easy way to think of the science of morality is to imagine a world where everyone in the world is experiencing the maximum possible misery. That’s bad. Now imagine that anything that takes us away from that state is good…or at least better. Now, let’s apply science to see how to do that. Our current situations are simply more complex and less extreme versions of this.

• Even if you’re religious, the focus is still the improvement of well-being of conscious creatures. The difference is that this is spread out disproportionately into the afterlife. So then it simply becomes a matter of if that’s the actual best way to increase the well-being, which in turn hinges on whether or not the propositions of the various afterlife states are true

• Our understanding of health is nearly as elastic as our understanding of morality. We have issues even identifying when someone is alive or dead, but this doesn’t mean we can’t say someone is suffering from smallpox. The fact that we don’t have all the information on a complex subject doesn’t mean we can’t be certain about certain things about it, e.g. happiness vs. suffering vs. health vs. suffering from smallpox. Nobody would think to ask someone screaming in pain from smallpox, “How do you KNOW you’re really suffering?”

• Even though we are barely scratching the surface of medical knowledge, we can still dismiss biblical chemists and biblical physicists. There are wrong answers–even in a topic where we don’t have all the right ones (or even many right ones)

• Certain things are usually true even if they aren’t always true, like “don’t lose your queen” in Chess. If you want to play good Chess you have to know this, but there are times 1) when it’s your best move, and 2) when it’s your ONLY move. Lying is bad, but it’s ok when Anne Frank is in your basement and the Nazis come calling.

• Religion is not a good word. It’s like Sports. Sports don’t tell you anything about violence because there are both Badminton and Muay Thai. If you get hurt doing Muay Thai you’re a Muay Thai fighter. If you get hurt playing badminton, you’re just embarrassed

• It’s the same for religions. Religious extremism isn’t the problem. Fundamentalism isn’t the problem. The more extreme of a Janist someone becomes, the less you have to worry about them. The only problem with Muslim fundamentalists is the fundamentals of Islam.

• Spain translates more of the world’s text into Spanish every year than the Arabic-speaking world has translated into Arabic since the 9th century

…anyway, it did cover the same arguments covered in the book (which I’ve gifted to a few close friends), but with some slight variation. I strongly suggest you pick up a copy.

I honestly feel it’s one of the most important books that currently exists in the world. Few things are more important than rationally discussing how to increase happiness and reduce suffering. ::

(this too is a collection of notes I have, which will possibly later become actual posts/essays)

Liberals view a lack of education and a presence of superstition as an alternative way of life rather than treating these things as conditions that need to be eradicated.

Education is fundamentally judgmental. The very idea admits of believing there are right and wrong ways of approaching problems. and that the wrong ways should be avoided.

To embrace education while simultaneously protecting ignorance and superstition is both hypocritical and dangerous to society.

Liberals, not creationists, are to blame for creationism being taught in American schools. They are the ones who know creationism to be patently false, yet sit in passive silence while ignorance is imbued into another generation of children.

No, liberals, don’t insult me by blaming the ignorant. YOU are to blame for failing to outright condemn those who would propagate ignorance. It is postmodern intellectual cowardice that is to blame–not those who take advantage of it.